Mr_Adams wrote:So am I able to have 5 games all the time as long as 1 is Conquer Cup?

Edit: I was already in 4 when the cup started, now I'm in 5. I'm just wondering if I'll be able to join another when one finishes in the next couple days.

I believe that if you have 4 games when you want to join the Conquer Cup, you aren't 'penalized' and can join the Cup. If one of your non-Cup active games drops off, and you're back down to 4 games (3 regular and 1 Cup game), then that is when the Cup counts toward your active game limit.

Mr_Adams wrote:So am I able to have 5 games all the time as long as 1 is Conquer Cup?

Edit: I was already in 4 when the cup started, now I'm in 5. I'm just wondering if I'll be able to join another when one finishes in the next couple days.

I believe that if you have 4 games when you want to join the Conquer Cup, you aren't 'penalized' and can join the Cup. If one of your non-Cup active games drops off, and you're back down to 4 games (3 regular and 1 Cup game), then that is when the Cup counts toward your active game limit.

--Andy

Alright. Since it's a P2P game, in the future, they should be made not to count against the game limit. At least IMHO.

Mr_Adams wrote:So am I able to have 5 games all the time as long as 1 is Conquer Cup?

Edit: I was already in 4 when the cup started, now I'm in 5. I'm just wondering if I'll be able to join another when one finishes in the next couple days.

I believe that if you have 4 games when you want to join the Conquer Cup, you aren't 'penalized' and can join the Cup. If one of your non-Cup active games drops off, and you're back down to 4 games (3 regular and 1 Cup game), then that is when the Cup counts toward your active game limit.

--Andy

Alright. Since it's a P2P game, in the future, they should be made not to count against the game limit. At least IMHO.

This. If you're paying to play, it should definitely not count against the game limit.

I see it clearly says it so I will take whatever consequences deemed appropriate, not that it states what those are. Obviously, however, something needs to be done with the account sitting sitting. If fries would have just taken my turn without saying anything no one would have known. Who knows how often this happens.

Hmm, I didn't know it was against the rules to account sit. I played against people who had sitters in CCII

In my game, there was a player who had a round 1 account sitter. I figured since it took months for the game to start, and the games joined automatically, I wasn't going to bother with it. I mean, there was no warning for these games to start. if you secured your spot when the tournament was announced, you can't have been expected to have plans 3 months in advance.

shoop76 wrote:I see it clearly says it so I will take whatever consequences deemed appropriate, not that it states what those are. Obviously, however, something needs to be done with the account sitting sitting. If fries would have just taken my turn without saying anything no one would have known. Who knows how often this happens.

I got nothing against you. And I completely 100% agree - had he just taken a ten without posting no one would know. That's partly why I'm asking - why have a rule if it's not actively being checked in all the games for "sitting" or others not posting.

Either remove the stupid rule or enforce it, or I won't be supporting this new "feature tournament".

I ran into this issue in CCII where a clanmate covered my turn because I didn't get there in time. I received a warning and statement that further offences would result in stricter consequences.

I'm fine with this system - however, the only reason I received a warning was because I brought it forward that I had broken the rules. There are way too many ways to not get caught for this (intentionally or unintentionally) and given the wording of the rule, I would expect there to be more stringent guidelines relating to catching and punishing the violators.

denominator wrote:I ran into this issue in CCII where a clanmate covered my turn because I didn't get there in time. I received a warning and statement that further offences would result in stricter consequences.

I'm fine with this system - however, the only reason I received a warning was because I brought it forward that I had broken the rules. There are way too many ways to not get caught for this (intentionally or unintentionally) and given the wording of the rule, I would expect there to be more stringent guidelines relating to catching and punishing the violators.

Agreed, if its not actively enforced why is there a rule to begin with? And to many ways to get around it...am now realizing i shouldn't have spent $5 on this.